Text Size

Then, after perhaps taking some lumps at congressional hearings and spending a few months in the political wilderness, quietly begin cutting checks again as if nothing happened.

Such appears to be the case for JPMorgan Chase, which is under fire for losing $2 billion on trades tied to credit derivatives — financial tools that helped damage the U.S. financial system late last decade.

Its PAC typically contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars to federal candidates and committees each election cycle but it hasn’t donated a reportable dime to candidates since May 7, according to federal campaign filings.

In recent years, BP, Goldman Sachs and News Corp.’s American subsidiaries all went down a similar road, turning off their political cash spigots while under the hot glare of the congressional, media and law enforcement spotlight.

Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) received — and promptly returned — a $1,000 BP Corporation North America PAC contribution he got less than a month after the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform explosion of April 20, 2010.

“It makes good sense on everyone’s part for a company PAC to suspend campaign money during a period of scrutiny or a period of investigation,” Gonzalez said. “What I look for is whether the company is accountable for its mistake, assumes responsibility and takes substantive measures to correct it. Then I’ll make a decision about accepting support.”

A lawyer who advises JPMorgan tells POLITICO that temporarily severing important financial ties with influential politicians is a better long-term strategy than continuing to donate to them amid a scandal.

“You don’t want to risk a congressman returning a contribution,” the lawyer said. “You want to let the dark clouds pass, you want to let the seas calm, before you start up again.”

When JPMorgan decides to give again, it’ll have plenty of political cash to draw on: $680,375 worth as of June 30, its latest report indicates.

Corporate JPMorgan officials did not return requests for comment.

Gonzalez, who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he’d probably accept a BP check today because the company has adequately worked to fix the problems it caused.

BP ultimately stopped giving for nine months from 2010 to early 2011 in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed 11 people and sent an estimated 4.9 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Political candidates collectively returned or didn’t deposit tens of thousands of dollars in BP PAC contributions in the months after the spill.

But this election cycle, BP’s regained its status as one of the nation’s more active PACs, routinely spreading five-figures’ worth of contributions among numerous lawmakers.

Last month, for example, BP’s PAC handed out about $16,500 overall, including four-figure sums to the campaigns of Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), John Culberson (R-Texas) and Jim Costa (D-Calif.).

Readers' Comments (26)

Lookie here, another hit piece on America's corporations. You can tell obysmal's numbers are under water by the way his press corp is fighting to demonize the institutions that make America what it is.

Remember, obysmal says to business owners: You didn't build that, the government built that. Sad how hateful libbers are to America and to freedom itself.

The rich and special interests will always donate. We cant stop that. But we need to keep a President that will not do their bidding as a result. The banks and Wall st are still mad at Obama today after his financial reform law that curtailed their excesses in spite of 2008 giving. They are still trying to repeal the law and now giving abundantly to Romney - one of their own who will definitely do their biding if given a chance, starting with more tax cuts for them: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/... and continuation of that carried interest scam that he himself exploited.

How on earth will jobs return to this country if we elect the guy who started offshoring our jobs and benefited personally while at the same time keeping his wealth outside as well. The bible already taught that where a man's wealth is there also lies his heart. Under Obama for the first time since 1986 manufacturinig jobs has increased on net in this country. This in very difficult economic times he came into. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Nasty, no good rotten business! Obama says "get rid of them" use Obamanomics, deficits and payola to succeed like Greece, Spain and Portugal! Chase business out of the USA so we can all be on Food Stamps is the way to go! Go Bama!

Not sure about BP, but it is interesting to note that in 2008 two of the companies named in this article, Goldman Sachs gave Obama 1,013,019.00 and also donated some to McCain 240,295.00 JP Morgan gave 808,799.00 to Obama and also gave 343,505.00 to McCain. Overall the top 20 wall street firsms donate 13,382,825.00 to Obama and 4,034,622 to McCain. Occupy Wall Street are protesting the wrong candidates and party according to the 2008 campagin donations.

But it is also interesting to note most of these firms also donated to McCain, I guess just in case he won. That way Wall Street was sure to have both presidential candidates owing them big time.

I am still laughing on how out of contents Obama remarks about infrastructure were taken by Republicans. What Obama was saying is that business owners did not build the roads and bridges that carried their goods. They did not build the electrical lines, phone lines, water, sewer, etc. that their businesses are using. I know Faux news and Romney campaign went wild on "You didn't built that" comment. I am glad that people that can be fooled by taking this comment out of content are voting for Republicans. They deserve to be fooled.

So let Corporations and Super PAC's like the Supreme Court allowed, to buy our politicians and the elections.all

Ever since that terrible decision by our right wing Supreme Court, Citizens United, our politics is influenced by rich corporations such as Koch Industries.

Please sign the petition below:

http://www.amend2012.or...

Why do we need to overturn Citizens United?

By law, corporate officers are expected to act upon only one motivation, the corporate economic bottom line. So allowing them to spend in elections, given their vast capital, risks elections being decided on what's best for an individual corporation, not on what's best for the people in that district or state or what's best for us as a country.

Only by overturning the decision can we start to have a democracy that represents actual hardworking Americans.

The ruling allowed corporations and unions to use their general treasuries to pay for political advertisements that expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate, also known as independent expenditures. This ruling subsequently allowed non-profit corporations under the tax code 501c to spend unlimited amounts of money running these political advertisements while not revealing their donors.

Influencing elections cannot, by law, be the primary purpose of the non-profits.

These nonprofits certainly took advantage of their new power, however, spending $61.3 million on independent expenditures in 2010.

Top findings of the Center's study include:

· The percentage of spending coming from groups that do not disclose their donors has risen from 1 percent to 47 percent since the 2006 midterm elections

· 501c non-profit spending increased from zero percent of total spending by outside groups in 2006 to 42 percent in 2010.

· Outside interest groups spent more on election season political advertising than party committees for the first time in at least two decades, besting party committees by about $105 million.

· The amount of independent expenditure and electioneering communication spending by outside groups has quadrupled since 2006.

· Seventy-two percent of political advertising spending by outside groups in 2010 came from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006

Michael 1973, did you see the speech in which obysmal said that? I did. Even if the president makes me want to vomit I listen to his speeches so I can have a head's up on how he is going to try to screw over the American people next. Why would he mention business owners when talking about roads and bridges? He clearly said that if you are a business owner you did not buidl that business. Just like the roads and bridges, obysmal truly believes government builds businesses too.

That is why obysmal cannot restart this economy. He doesn't know how the economy works. He's never had a job in the private sector, he's never had to make payroll, he's never had to be up late nights wondering how he is going to be able to pay his people so they can pay their bills and take care of their families. He seriously thinks he can just issue out an executive order and demand that businesses start hiring and start paying more taxes.

Libbers are lost, my friend. Libbers need to understand that this nation was built off the blood and sweat of the producers in this country, not the takers and most definitely not the government. obysmal needs to get out of the way of business owners and let them fix the economy that he screwed up.

I'm more fired up now than I've ever been to make sure me and my tribe make it to the polls on November 6th to vote this anti-American out of office. I'll make sure I knock on all my neighbor's doors too and get them to the polls as well. This time America is awake!

Get the money, and the influence it buys, out of politics. Corporations ARE NOT people, my friends.

No, but corporations are made up of people, just like unions are made up of people, the VFW, American Legion are made up of people. Any organization or company are made up of people. Super Pacs are made up of people, the Republican and Democratic Parties are made up of people. You would have to outlaw every organization as far as donating goes, perhaps that would be a good thing as the Republican and Democratic parties would be outlawed. Then as the framers and founders had in mind, individual citizens would run for public office with no attachment to any political party, the only individuals could donate money to those individual candidates. Yeah, I like the sound of that.